Comments

Let's have the "new ubi-utils" makefile handle CFLAGS like the other
makefiles. This is important when cross compiling and CFLAGS is
externally provided. Without this, local include files are not found due
to the various -I arguments which are then lost.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>

On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 13:31, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> Let's have the "new ubi-utils" makefile handle CFLAGS like the other> makefiles. This is important when cross compiling and CFLAGS is> externally provided. Without this, local include files are not found due> to the various -I arguments which are then lost.>> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
i dont think sticking CFLAGS into CPPFLAGS is right. they're separate
on purpose. you also break custom CPPFLAG injection here ... CPPFLAGS
should be treated just like CFLAGS: appended, not strictly set.
-mike

On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 13:31 -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> Let's have the "new ubi-utils" makefile handle CFLAGS like the other > makefiles. This is important when cross compiling and CFLAGS is > externally provided. Without this, local include files are not found due > to the various -I arguments which are then lost.> > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
Applied, thanks.

On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 20:52 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 13:31, Nicolas Pitre wrote:> > Let's have the "new ubi-utils" makefile handle CFLAGS like the other> > makefiles. This is important when cross compiling and CFLAGS is> > externally provided. Without this, local include files are not found due> > to the various -I arguments which are then lost.> >> > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>> > i dont think sticking CFLAGS into CPPFLAGS is right. they're separate> on purpose. you also break custom CPPFLAG injection here ... CPPFLAGS> should be treated just like CFLAGS: appended, not strictly set.
May be, I'm bad in Makefile stuff. But this is what the rest of Makefile
files in mtd-utils do, so I've applied Nicolas' patch.